UK Govt proposes changes to club ownership rules

UK Govt proposes changes to club ownership rules

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/mar/28/government-plan-football-clubs-fans

This might be moot anyhow - I don't see the Tories doing this if they get in - but it's good to see someone's officially proposing something. Giving fans first option to buy their clubs at a fair price if the owners sell seems like a very good idea. 

Problem number one - if such club should go 'under' will fans then foot the bill?

This is one of those things that sounds good in theory but won't work.

I'm not sure the idea even crosses that threshold.

The idea as stated certainly has issues, but it wasn't exactly an in depth analysis of a specific suggestion.

The number one reason the idea sucks is because the Governments doing it. They should stay out.

Something needs to be done in the long term and the FA, FIFA and UEFA don't have the balls to make the call, so somebody needs to stand up and do something.

In the long term the clubs that have dodgy ownership structures will be found out.

No case for government intervention whatsoever.

This.

This isn't a situation where the market should be allowed free reign to dictate the outcomes. There is no doubt that clubs with dodgy ownership structures and questionable business practices will be found out over time. The problem I have with it that this isn't like other markets.

If a normal business is destroyed by people looking to make a quick buck and then exit, their customers simply shift to the new business that will surely pop up. The emotional investment isn't there, and the loss is largely limited to the company and those within it. No problems.

A football club isn't a normal business. It exists only because of the community of fans that support the club. Should they really be left exposed to people swooping in and making a quick buck, only to leave with the club in turmoil? Are the Portsmouth fans getting what they deserved? Are Perennial strugglers Liverpool or United fans?

Some protection is needed, surely? The current situation is nothing less than toxic. The idea discussed in the article may not be the solution, but I don't think government intervention is something that should be ruled out.

For football fans, it's not as easy as shifting your custom to another supplier.

I'd just like to add that what I assume is the automatic addition of "Perennial strugglers" is absolutely commendable.

So then the question becomes what will the government do and will it make the problematic situation, as you perceive it, any better?

I believe that if they can go some way to ensuring that supporters are represented at the highest level of club operation, then that is going some way to improving the situation, yes.

I just want to point out too that I'm not saying hand everything over to the fans either. I just think that the alienation that the fans of some clubs must feel is something that needs to be tackled. Even as an Arsenal fan I don't like the idea that some Russian of questionable character and history could potentially take over our club.

I think the clubs themselves have a pretty strong incentive to ensure they don't alienate their fans too much. After all, there is no business proposition in a club with no fans. Look at what is happening at Man U right now, that sort of grassroots movement didn't require government intervention.

The United movement hasn't succeeded in doing anything yet, though it is encouraging.Look at how much debt the Glazers have successfully straddled the club with before any supporters have been able to step in. Look at how much money they are extracting from the club for their own private benefit.

Look at Portsmouth, they're probably not the sort of club where a large group of wealthy individuals can band together and step in. Look at the harm caused by people who arguably didn't care about the club or its fans.

Look at Chester City FC. That club was just absolutely destroyed by people who definitely did not care about its long term viability. Would a man like Stephen Vaughan, who had already been investigated by the HMRC due to links to money laundering and 'gangsters', have been allowed to take over the club and do irreparable harm if fans had been in a stronger position? At best he had no idea how to run the club responsibly.

To me, the problem is that football clubs are essentially community organisations. I'm not at all sure that they should be run as profit generating entities for the benefit of outside investors.

/edited then un-edited as a reply had already been posted
Steffen2010-03-30 14:24:29

I don't believe these are mutually exclusive. This seems to be where we fundamentally disagree.

Happy to see things continue as they are? Genuine question. If not, what would you change?

I think naturally that some business models currently being used in clubs will come unstuck. Much like they have at different stages of the history of football, as you have rightly pointed out above.

I don't think that warrants any sort of intervention though. It's very easy to say "oh the government must do something about this" without thinking about how effective the intervention actually will be, or taking into consideration those other clubs that are 'well' run (whatever that means) and how such intervention could impose costs on them.

Am I happy with the way things are? Largely. Although I'd love to see Man U collapse under the weight of their debt.

More importantly, even if I weren't "happy with the way things are", that doesn't mean I think the system as it has evolved should change for my benefit.

I think you're absolutely right about the point of our disagreement.

To close my part of that off, I see clubs as public institutions, parts of an area's heritage, a sort of homage to the past and a promise to the future. I don't think someone should be able to walk in, buy that and put it at risk.

You (correct any part of this that I've misjudged): In no way condone the rape and pillage of football clubs, but have serious doubts over what can be done about it, and feel that jumping into something for the sake of doing something is to be discouraged, as is governement intervention, if at all possible.

/I didn't mean that to be a 'haha, I've got you all figured out.' Just want to check that I understand where you're coming from.

I would add that, over time, I would expect to see natural pressures on clubs that would incentivise them not to behave recklessly with their ownership structures. e.g. pressure from fans.

Other than that, what you say is essentially where I am coming from.

Mmmmm . . . . Thats just copying Melbourne Victory idea . . . sort of worked for them.

When it comes down to, the fans from their community that has the money to invest should be able to as a collective, can have an elected representative on the club board. A collective voice that will have invested interest with the club being more transparent in their process. Can't see it not working out. It would shoot down some power struggles in some clubs.

I think that the free market does not have the answer because it is just a headless beast. However since the premier league in under free market having separated themselves from the English FA control, then risker things have occurred. this is why the government is called to place restrictions because the FA has no control or say in the matter.

25% to the fans is quite acceptable to keep thing in touch with the fans. Like you said, clubs are community organisations first and foremost before business profiting. However having said that, we don't want another Wolverhampton Wanderers     situation as it was in the mid-80s. I see it only as a bit of a safe tool among other safe tools. We wouldn't want too much power to a few people and we wouldn't want the club to be directionless because of having too many chiefs and not enough indians. So I can't see why they can't maintain a balance as a business and a community organisation if they let use a salary earned CEO or Manager that they can hire and fire and let the coach be coaches.

The total football club manager model is too heavy load without the right backroom staff. Even Ferguson in his early days had struggled in getting the results and it was only patiences of the board and the club's support infrastructure and picking up great players with large money that ensured his long manager life.

james dean2010-04-02 02:01:59

Well it doesn't have to be one fan representative . . . they can be proportionally represented.

Perhaps hold the owners/directors more accountable. Hit them up with negligence (or something)if  a club goes under due to their poor management and taking advantage of the club. That way things can run their natural course as arsenal wants,and there would be a natural pressure not to screw a club over as the owners would know theyd be scrutinised and possibly charged after the club goes under.